Quote:
Originally Posted by Britannist
We don't want to end up with pro-EU Heseltine, John Prescott or election losers such as the europhile Patten or Kinnock (former EU Commissioners) as our Head of State.
|
There is no way a monarchy can prevent such imbeciles from becoming head of state either. The only difference is, we would have no way to get rid of them. The example I gave above was another George III and George IV. Monarchy can produce good heads of state and bad ones, the same is true of a republic. So this point is moot in my opinion.
Quote:
|
I mean, it wouldn't be a very nice thing telling our excellent and brave armed forces that they were serving a Head of State like one of that lot, would it?
|
I don't believe it to be very nice to tell them they are fighting for the queen either. Some may believe they are, some may not. In other republics their troops fight for the ideals of the nation, not for one man or woman. In France and America the ideals of liberty and freedom are what the troops are thought to be fighting for. Of course these countries have strayed from these ideals, but so has Britain. If the troops are really fighting for the queen then that would make the Iraq war in her name, would it not? It cannot be said that the American troops are fighting for liberty and freedom in the same way it cannot be said that the British troops are fighting in the name of the queen, unless we want to hold both liberty and monarchy responsible for the horrific killing now taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote:
|
I would also add, Smidgey, that since you are Scottish - the Union of the UK more easily stays together when we have a Monarch. There are many who would take the view that the people of Scotland might be less likely to support the Union (of the UK) if the Head of State were an elected President (i.e. businessman, ex-politician or a celebrity) - someone voted in by an electorate in which the Scottish proportion would be about 10%.
|
Funny that you should mention this. Scotland is a far more republican nation than England is if this forum represents most English views on this matter. Furthermore, this is a perfect example of the monarchy not being able to represent the whole of the UK. I have seen rugby games where the home nations have played each other and I recall a game where England were playing against Wales with prince William and prince Harry present. Both were wearing England shirts, despite supposedly being the representatives of this whole nation and despite being the children of the Prince of Wales!
Quote:
Our Monarchy is part of the history of Scotland as well as England and both Scots and English people are understandably more loyal to The Crown than they would be to a President who almost certainly would have been backed (as a candidate) by one of the big political parties.
Republicanism endangers the ancient Union that is the UK.
|
I have said it before and I am going to say it again:
"Wherever there is liberty, that is my country."
I do not intend on living in a monarchy my whole life. If the UK stays on the current path that it is, then my plan is to emigrate and attain a PhD overseas rather than at a British institution (hopefully in the U.S.A.).
Furthermore, I see no need to be loyal to a crown, it represents nothing for me. I also feel no need to be loyal to this state in its current situation. I am not a collectivist, I am an individual and there is no reason for me to show allegiance to this state which represents nothing more than a legal fiction. I will be content to show allegiance to liberty and to promote it wherever possible.
I recall in another thread you mentioned Theroux was your favourite philosopher, which is interesting, because it is his position I am taking on this (along with Lysander Spooner's).